8 ms·

Sheryl Sandberg Is Said to Have Asked Facebook Staff to Research George Soros

154 points by tysone 8y ago

mc32 8y ago
>told subordinates to examine why Mr. Soros had criticized the tech companies and whether he stood to gain financially from the attacks. Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So, it shouldn't be surprising FB would want to know what might be in store for them if he went nuclear on them. What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of Soros on the left and others on the right clamoring for FB regulation. I probably agree they need some kind of regulation --but one more generalized to all user-facing internet companies (colloquially "user is the product" companies).
- askafriend 8y ago
  If someone is publicly saying questionable things about your organization, then trying to find out what their motivations might be by doing research is just common sense (especially if the company in question is publicly traded). So I'm with you there, I don't get the outrage here at all. It comes off as cheap and manufactured from what I'm seeing.
  - natch 8y ago
    Which outrage are you referring to? I didn't see any in the article. It seemed pretty even keeled.
    - askafriend 8y ago
      I'm referring more to the outrage around the article, not necessarily the article itself.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        Refer to it by link or quote. You shouldn't refer to something in sum when you didn't address a single actual piece of it.
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      I think the outrage is implicit in the the publication of the article. Why is this in the New York Times? He criticized the company, she asked is he had a financial interest behind the criticism. Okay? Why is this a story?
      - untog 8y ago
        At least partly because up until this point Facebook has denied she did any such thing. If it's not a big deal they would have disclosed it before now.
      - phs318u 8y ago
        > Why is this a story? Because George Soros is a lightning rod for the alt-right and NWO conspiracy theorists.
        isoskeles 8y ago
        No it's more like: Because Facebook / "Russia" is a lightning rod for leftists still suffering a narcissistic injury over Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump (of all people).
      - natch 8y ago
        She did previously deny knowing about the PR company doing the oppo research on Soros... generally when there's a denial at a high level and then contradictory evidence comes out, it's newsworthy. It's not airtight evidence that she lied, just more of a glaring red flag that a closer look might be warranted.
        isoskeles 8y ago
        Who cares if she lied?
        natch 8y ago
        Shareholders. They often prefer having confidence that the statements of executives can be relied on.
  - doctorpangloss 8y ago
    Everyone should read his comments[0] about Facebook and Google, before you criticize the guy. > what their motivations might be by doing research is just common sense The rhetoric that you guys use, especially when you talk about someone who's probably as genuinely committed to a civil, liberal world as George Soros: you sound like a South Park character. You can watch a clip that uses conspiratorial rhetoric (and makes fun of it) here: [1]. And I think the amazing thing is, it's not that South Park turned into this right-leaning children's TV show. It's that Republicans, libertarians and just cocky, downvoting male engineers alike have all started to turn into South Park. "What you gotta understand [Hacker News], everyone has an agenda." [0] https://www.georgesoros.com/2018/01/25/remarks-delivered-at-the-world-economic-forum/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2018/01/25/remarks-delivered-at-... [1] https://southpark.cc.com/clips/mqwfxt/its-right-there https://southpark.cc.com/clips/mqwfxt/its-right-there
    - SquishyPanda23 8y ago
      > it's not that South Park turned into this right-leaning children's TV show. I have no idea what you're referring to with the South Park reference and George Soros, I don't really follow the show. But South Park has actually long been considered right-leaning by some people, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican As far as I can tell the main people who hold this view are right-leaning, e.g. https://www.city-journal.org/html/we%E2%80%99re-not-losing-culture-wars-anymore-12482.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/we%E2%80%99re-not-losing-c... I usually see the creators referred to as libertarians. E.g. Matt Stone saying "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
    - vadym909 8y ago
      Wow- Soros is pretty good!
  - pstuart 8y ago
    It's not like he's alone in criticizing Facebook, and with good reason.
  - delhanty 8y ago
    Furthermore, the New York Times and friends are competitors with Facebook, Google et al in the market for online advertising, so their interest in taking down Facebook comes across as self-serving. For myself, I'd like to see a 95% contraction in the online advertising market $ value, so I'm uBlock Origin all the way. Edit: for clarity, I'm not here to shill for Facebook - they're toxic! I'd be quite happy if Facebook shrunk to $0.
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    Exactly. If someone said something questionable about you, you might do a google search. Doesn’t make you a stalker.
- digitalzombie 8y ago
  > Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So you're judging him on the fact that he plays Forex and short? If they didn't want that then it should be made illegal. This is a dubious statement.
  - mc32 8y ago
    It's not a judgement. It's just a fact. And the possibility exists he'd exact the same thing on a target like FB. It's just prudent on their part to look at the seriousness of the implications.
    - astronautjones 8y ago
      > And the possibility exists he'd exact the same thing on a target like FB. thinking that this is possible is disingenuous and such a conservative fever dream.
      - mc32 8y ago
        So Sheryll is now a conservative? Uhhuh.
        chokolad 8y ago
        Apparently also anti-Semite.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        I have no idea whether she is or not, but statements like that require some sort of source. Hearsay accusations are toxic.
        astronautjones 8y ago
        please see the great Tom Scocca's commentary - https://mobile.twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1068351171654549504 https://mobile.twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1068351171654549...
- int_19h 8y ago
  How about some regulation as a monopoly? (and ditto other tech companies that have undue influence on the market)
- marcelluspye 8y ago
  >What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of Soros on the left and others on the right clamoring for FB regulation. I probably agree they need some kind of regulation --but one more generalized to all user-facing internet companies (colloquially "user is the product" companies). Your last point is worded as if Soros is the sole and direct cause of the clamor. I think the more likely cause is the large number of (elderly -- voting!) people for whom facebook is the internet. It serves politicians to play to this confusion, as it gives them a clear company/CEO to point the finger at to appear 'tough on the bad things happening on the internet.' Bill Gates used to be the 'computer person' to old people (the president said in 2015, "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way." in regards to the internet), and now it's Zuckerberg.
- xibalba 8y ago
  I think this comment misses the larger point of the article. The narrative being constructed by the NYT and others is that Sandberg has at best been "forgetful" in recollecting her role in this "Definers Public Affairs" scandal. If we're being less charitable, it appears the insinuation is that she lied about and possibly even covered up her role. Keep in mind, Definers' smears trafficked in anti-semitic subtext (a powerful cabal of Jews manipulating world events). Sandberg is in a lot of trouble here. She has been very deliberately burnishing her public image for years, and has thus far deftly avoided being tarnished by the many FB scandals. There have been suggestions that much of this PR strategy was to set her up for a run at a major political office. Those ambitions look to be in serious trouble if her involvement in this scandal deepens.
- thisisit 8y ago
  > Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies Whole countries? I have heard of only one - the infamous british pound. And that too it caused the GBP rates to fall but then financial damage to Britian as a country? What is your source exactly?
  - briandear 8y ago
    Bank of Thailand: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-george-soros-broke-the-bank-of-thailand-2016-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-george-soros-broke-the-b... Soros wasn’t alone, but the hedges funds certainly helped crush Thailand in 1997, triggering the Asian financial crisis. It’s not a stretch to suggest that his massive funding of political groups in countries in which he has bet against the currency is connected.
    - thisisit 8y ago
      Thanks for the reference. It was an interesting read: Yet Soros wasn't the biggest single speculator to hold a position against the currency. Julian Robertson's Tiger Fund had three times the exposure of Soros with almost $3 billion bet against the baht. If anything, Julian Robertson would have been more motivated to engineer Thailand's decline. It seems there were only rumors that Soros had anything to do with it, all the while someone else was more profitable than him. And given that he was already famous for the GBP trade why not blame him? What is interesting is that people don't seem to understand the consequences of pegs. It is much easier to paint a picture of greedy investor. But in most cases it has nothing to do with the investor and all up to the central banks. Something similar happened in the swiss franc and here's what happened to Soros: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-23/how-swiss-national-bank-almost-crushed-george-soros https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-23/how-swiss-national...
      - astronautjones 8y ago
        > It seems there were only rumors that Soros had anything to do with it, all the while someone else was more profitable than him. And given that he was already famous for the GBP trade why not blame him? because it's a conservative, anti-semitic trope. he is the ur-villian, the mega boss after people tire of you complaining about the clintons. it's been this way for twenty years
- KKKKkkkk1 8y ago
  Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. When the UK government made a commitment to prop up a fake GBP exchange rate and then failed, isn't it the UK government that caused the financial damage rather than George Soros?
  - shrewduser 8y ago
    sounds similar to when the US was on the gold standard
    - stretchwithme 8y ago
      You mean when the US would give you a fixed amount of gold when you brought in US dollars, like it did for most of its history? Or when it abandoned that and the resulting inflation wrecked the 1970s?
- duxup 8y ago
  I can understand the curiosity. But let's say they look into it...are they likely to find his criticism to be reasonable and just walk away after that? I just wonder if you go as far as to investigate such things if you've got some motivation or inclination to find / feel their actions are biased or uncalled for and that might lead to what Facebook did... fire up their own disinformation...
- panarky 8y ago
  When the NYT first published "Delay, Deny and Deflect" [1], Sandberg pretended she didn't know anything about it and promised to investigate. Later, she claimed the investigation turned up emails about Facebook's deceptive practices that "crossed her desk" [2], but made it sound like her involvement was peripheral and incidental. Naturally, now we learn those were all lies, and she was personally involved the entire time actually leading the effort. Just more Delay, Deny and Deflect. Facebook cannot be trusted to fix Facebook. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/business/on-thanksgiving-eve-facebook-acknowledges-details-of-times-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/business/on-thanksgiving-...
  - bob_bob_bob 8y ago
    I'm not sure what "this" you're referring to is, but assuming it's Definers: where did you learn she was involved the entire time? This article says: Ms. Sandberg [...] asked for the information in an email to a senior executive in January[...]. The email came within days of a blistering speech Mr. Soros delivered that month at the World Economic Forum, attacking Facebook and Google as a “menace” to society and calling for the companies to be regulated. This seems like a pretty reasonable reaction. As far as I understand this has nothing to do with Definers.
    - panarky 8y ago
      I'm referring to Facebook's efforts to discredit critics through the same sleazy disinformation campaign tactics that Facebook continues to amplify for other shadowy groups. You know, like targeting Facebook users who are racist and anti-Semitic with disinfo about George Soros, while simultaneously telling Jewish users that Facebook's critics are themselves anti-Semitic. FTFA, first paragraph: Sheryl Sandberg was directly involved in the social media company’s effort to conduct opposition research against billionaire philanthropist George Soros... ...reporting contradicts Sandberg’s previous portrayals of her involvement; she has said she was unaware of the campaign-style communications work done by Republican public relations firm Definers Public Affairs
docbrown 8y ago
This may be an unpopular opinion but here it is: Zuckerburg started this as a hobby with it being something he may never have thought of becoming full-scale. Fast forward to today and Zuckerburg is in over his head. He has control over this !massive! amount of data that companies are chomping at the bit for. He’s trying to make sure his company survives and his product does no harm. But, he’s losing control. They’re trying to wiggle out of these wormholes they’ve sunk in and all of their fabrications are coming to light.
- askafriend 8y ago
  Your comment is quite far off from reality. To address your first point: he started the company deliberately. He had sold a successful company before Facebook. He also turned down multi-billion dollar acquisition offers because he knew exactly what he was doing and what the opportunity was. Many of the funding rounds for FB were red hot and everyone was trying to get in. And to your second point: what he built is unprecedented. And because it is unprecedented, there are a lot of questions that we as a society need to answer collectively about the role a product like Facebook plays in our lives (kinda just like with every other new, transformational technology, including email). But to call his execution "In over his head" is laughable. I don't think other leaders would have fared any better and many could have fared much, much worse. Now, are there questions and valid criticisms about his execution today or his handling of the recent controversies? Of course! Does that mean he's a random guy with a side-project that accidentally blew up and suddenly he's in over his head? Absolutely not, your comment is more fantasy than reality.
  - starik36 8y ago
    What business did he sell before Facebook?
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      Probably referring to the Synapse Media Player, which had a million-dollar buyout offer from Microsoft while Zuckerburg was in high school. IIRC he didn't actually sell it though; it was still a going project under Zuckerburg's control when he created FB, and just kinda died out because FB held more potential.
swampthinker 8y ago
Facebook is turning an awful lot of Democrats into enemies. Very curious to see how Zuckerberg tries to maneuver Facebook through wartime. [1] [1] https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo-2/ https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo-2/
- vtesucks 8y ago
  It's because the establishment segment (clinton) genuinely fear him throwing his hat in for 2020. Not that I like him but honestly, if he can sells fb stock and promises to genuinely treat Usa like his firm, I'd prefer him over a politician who says what pays (which is all politicians in all sides).
  - jsonne 8y ago
    This was actually a major selling point for Trump during the election until it wasn't.
    - vtesucks 8y ago
      Trump's promises may not fit well with half the people but he has done all he promised. See list below. Lets see zuck try that - I think he will succeed too at least better than the "charming" presidents of the recent past on either side TPP cancelled Prison reform NAFTA renegotiated (this is something that is nit clear how well he did) China trade war (which by bloombergs account he has an upper hand in) North Korea peace
      - tasty_freeze 8y ago
        > he has done all he promised Yes, he closed all those tax loopholes that he is an expert at exploiting (his words, not mine). He implemented his plan to win the war in Afghanistan. The wall along the border of Mexico is 30 feet tall and beautiful and Mexico paid for it. The opioid problem has been solved. He has released his tax returns. He has put his assets in a blind trust. He has Made America Great Again.
vtesucks 8y ago
Mr soros is known to move markets to make money. I don't see why media can just label someone beyond reproach and malign anybody who tries to even dare to look them up
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dstroot 8y ago
She did what I would have done if someone was attacked my company for no obvious reason - I’d want to know if they stood to gain and how. Obviously when someone holds a short position and bashed a company it’s pretty transparent. That’s a big reason why Tesla was in the news so much the last 12 months. It’s when FB went on the offensive and started attacking Soros with “factually questionable” information that they crossed the line.
- vtesucks 8y ago
  Well balanced comment, thank you.
- IBM 8y ago
  Soros was long Facebook and Alphabet in the 13F filing before he gave his speech and was long Alphabet in the 13F filing that covered the period in which he gave his speech [1][2]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036117042749/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036117... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036118008153/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036118...
- jacquesm 8y ago
  That's fine. But she lied about the whole thing which is not. It's a far cry from 'some emails crossed my desk' to 'I directed the research be done'.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
I would not be surprised if Mark Zuckerberg ends up becoming a Republican. He very obviously has political ambitions. A significant portion of the Left blames Facebook (at least in part) and by extension Zuckerberg for the election of Donald Trump. If he says the right things, I expect the Right to be more accepting than the Left which would still hold 2016 against him.
create_novelty 8y ago
I would assume that any important PR decision at Facebook would have to be green lit by Sheryl or Mark or both. Not surprised at this finding by NYT
- elicash 8y ago
  While it would be safe to assume that Facebook was being misleading from the start, it's important that news organizations do actual reporting to before coming to those types of conclusions.
writepub 8y ago
The article seems to imply Sandberg approved of anti semetic attacks against Soros, conveniently ignoring the fact that Sandberg (& Zuckerberg) is a Jew herself. I don't know what the editorial team at NYT thinks is happening, but I don't think Sandberg would condone anti semetic attacks against anyone, even rivals.
- mc32 8y ago
  The NYT takes sides. They will unfortunately omit things or insinuate things to support their opinion. NPR is much better, even though they lean left -but at least they try with exceptions.
  - vtesucks 8y ago
    I don't mind leaning left or right. I mind lying left and right.
    - mc32 8y ago
      Right. But the NYT is not the old NYT. They are not NPR-quality any more.
      - stevenwoo 8y ago
        The NYT has been around a long time and at various times has written multiple glowing articles about Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler and other despots of all stripes which does not speak well of ye old NYT. It is difficult to find a disparaging word in any of their coverage of current day neo Nazis in the USA when they have done extensive interviews. One needs to judge each article on its own merits.
- casefields 8y ago
  That is such a weak defense. It didn't work for Edward Said and it won't work for them.
  - 8y ago
40acres 8y ago
Not surprising but definitely adds to the icky feeling surrounding Sandberg and Zuckerberg. Interestingly enough I think Scott Galloway makes some great points, Sandberg is probably the most powerful woman in tech right now, it's probably a bad look for the board to let her go; and I doubt Zuck would force her out. I think she'll leave on her own terms.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SirLJ 8y ago
But, but, but, she said she didn’t...
heifetz 8y ago
I think the reason why this is a story that is causing a lot of interest and outrage is that Soros was right! Sandberg, Zuck and co, instead of reflecting on what was actually happening, and investigating the issues that Facebook was causing, or was being used for, chose to try to play defense and attach the people and organizations that were criticizing them. If Facebook was serious about becoming a "good" platform, then it would have acted sooner. Instead, we can look back and say that they pretty much only care about growing revenue and did not care too much about these issues, until they because front and center after Trump was elected. There is probably some sexism towards the over criticism of Sandberg over Zuck. But at the same time, Zuck was more hands off while hosting facetime live from his backyard, and traveling around the US, and proclaiming how great Facebook was, while Sandberg is suppose to be the day to day operator. I think Zuck deserve a lot of the same blame for this, as the CEO and the founder.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  That’s a lot of speculation from limited information. Best to default to outrage in this case...
chewz 8y ago
What? FB didn't have George Soros shadow profile at hand?
briandear 8y ago
We flag the story about Google employees discussing censoring conservative news sources but we push this story about Facebook to the front page? The intellectual dishonesty here is astounding.
- dang 8y ago
  Please stop posting these tedious off-topic complaints. I don't know what story you're talking about, but if you think flagging is being abused, let us know at hn@ycombinator.com so we can take a look at it.
richardknop 8y ago
I think given George Soros' history and the fact he is an investor known for making big bets, it is possible he would have a big short position open against Facebook and could gain lots of money if $FB stock keeps going down. It's not outside of realm of the possibilities the he would make a big bet like that so investigating what are his current positions in the stock market, how many puts is he holding etc might be a good idea.

154 points by tysone 8y ago

mc32 8y ago

>told subordinates to examine why Mr. Soros had criticized the tech companies and whether he stood to gain financially from the attacks. Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So, it shouldn't be surprising FB would want to know what might be in store for them if he went nuclear on them. What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of Soros on the left and others on the right clamoring for FB regulation. I probably agree they need some kind of regulation --but one more generalized to all user-facing internet companies (colloquially "user is the product" companies).

askafriend 8y ago
If someone is publicly saying questionable things about your organization, then trying to find out what their motivations might be by doing research is just common sense (especially if the company in question is publicly traded). So I'm with you there, I don't get the outrage here at all. It comes off as cheap and manufactured from what I'm seeing.
- natch 8y ago
  Which outrage are you referring to? I didn't see any in the article. It seemed pretty even keeled.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    I'm referring more to the outrage around the article, not necessarily the article itself.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      Refer to it by link or quote. You shouldn't refer to something in sum when you didn't address a single actual piece of it.
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    I think the outrage is implicit in the the publication of the article. Why is this in the New York Times? He criticized the company, she asked is he had a financial interest behind the criticism. Okay? Why is this a story?
    - untog 8y ago
      At least partly because up until this point Facebook has denied she did any such thing. If it's not a big deal they would have disclosed it before now.
    - phs318u 8y ago
      > Why is this a story? Because George Soros is a lightning rod for the alt-right and NWO conspiracy theorists.
      - isoskeles 8y ago
        No it's more like: Because Facebook / "Russia" is a lightning rod for leftists still suffering a narcissistic injury over Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump (of all people).
    - natch 8y ago
      She did previously deny knowing about the PR company doing the oppo research on Soros... generally when there's a denial at a high level and then contradictory evidence comes out, it's newsworthy. It's not airtight evidence that she lied, just more of a glaring red flag that a closer look might be warranted.
      - isoskeles 8y ago
        Who cares if she lied?
        natch 8y ago
        Shareholders. They often prefer having confidence that the statements of executives can be relied on.
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  Everyone should read his comments[0] about Facebook and Google, before you criticize the guy. > what their motivations might be by doing research is just common sense The rhetoric that you guys use, especially when you talk about someone who's probably as genuinely committed to a civil, liberal world as George Soros: you sound like a South Park character. You can watch a clip that uses conspiratorial rhetoric (and makes fun of it) here: [1]. And I think the amazing thing is, it's not that South Park turned into this right-leaning children's TV show. It's that Republicans, libertarians and just cocky, downvoting male engineers alike have all started to turn into South Park. "What you gotta understand [Hacker News], everyone has an agenda." [0] https://www.georgesoros.com/2018/01/25/remarks-delivered-at-the-world-economic-forum/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2018/01/25/remarks-delivered-at-... [1] https://southpark.cc.com/clips/mqwfxt/its-right-there https://southpark.cc.com/clips/mqwfxt/its-right-there
  - SquishyPanda23 8y ago
    > it's not that South Park turned into this right-leaning children's TV show. I have no idea what you're referring to with the South Park reference and George Soros, I don't really follow the show. But South Park has actually long been considered right-leaning by some people, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican As far as I can tell the main people who hold this view are right-leaning, e.g. https://www.city-journal.org/html/we%E2%80%99re-not-losing-culture-wars-anymore-12482.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/we%E2%80%99re-not-losing-c... I usually see the creators referred to as libertarians. E.g. Matt Stone saying "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
  - vadym909 8y ago
    Wow- Soros is pretty good!
- pstuart 8y ago
  It's not like he's alone in criticizing Facebook, and with good reason.
- delhanty 8y ago
  Furthermore, the New York Times and friends are competitors with Facebook, Google et al in the market for online advertising, so their interest in taking down Facebook comes across as self-serving. For myself, I'd like to see a 95% contraction in the online advertising market $ value, so I'm uBlock Origin all the way. Edit: for clarity, I'm not here to shill for Facebook - they're toxic! I'd be quite happy if Facebook shrunk to $0.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  Exactly. If someone said something questionable about you, you might do a google search. Doesn’t make you a stalker.
digitalzombie 8y ago
> Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. So you're judging him on the fact that he plays Forex and short? If they didn't want that then it should be made illegal. This is a dubious statement.
- mc32 8y ago
  It's not a judgement. It's just a fact. And the possibility exists he'd exact the same thing on a target like FB. It's just prudent on their part to look at the seriousness of the implications.
  - astronautjones 8y ago
    > And the possibility exists he'd exact the same thing on a target like FB. thinking that this is possible is disingenuous and such a conservative fever dream.
    - mc32 8y ago
      So Sheryll is now a conservative? Uhhuh.
      - chokolad 8y ago
        Apparently also anti-Semite.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        I have no idea whether she is or not, but statements like that require some sort of source. Hearsay accusations are toxic.
      - astronautjones 8y ago
        please see the great Tom Scocca's commentary - https://mobile.twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1068351171654549504 https://mobile.twitter.com/tomscocca/status/1068351171654549...
int_19h 8y ago
How about some regulation as a monopoly? (and ditto other tech companies that have undue influence on the market)
marcelluspye 8y ago
>What is surprising is the odd bedfellows of Soros on the left and others on the right clamoring for FB regulation. I probably agree they need some kind of regulation --but one more generalized to all user-facing internet companies (colloquially "user is the product" companies). Your last point is worded as if Soros is the sole and direct cause of the clamor. I think the more likely cause is the large number of (elderly -- voting!) people for whom facebook is the internet. It serves politicians to play to this confusion, as it gives them a clear company/CEO to point the finger at to appear 'tough on the bad things happening on the internet.' Bill Gates used to be the 'computer person' to old people (the president said in 2015, "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way." in regards to the internet), and now it's Zuckerberg.
xibalba 8y ago
I think this comment misses the larger point of the article. The narrative being constructed by the NYT and others is that Sandberg has at best been "forgetful" in recollecting her role in this "Definers Public Affairs" scandal. If we're being less charitable, it appears the insinuation is that she lied about and possibly even covered up her role. Keep in mind, Definers' smears trafficked in anti-semitic subtext (a powerful cabal of Jews manipulating world events). Sandberg is in a lot of trouble here. She has been very deliberately burnishing her public image for years, and has thus far deftly avoided being tarnished by the many FB scandals. There have been suggestions that much of this PR strategy was to set her up for a run at a major political office. Those ambitions look to be in serious trouble if her involvement in this scandal deepens.
thisisit 8y ago
> Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies Whole countries? I have heard of only one - the infamous british pound. And that too it caused the GBP rates to fall but then financial damage to Britian as a country? What is your source exactly?
- briandear 8y ago
  Bank of Thailand: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-george-soros-broke-the-bank-of-thailand-2016-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-george-soros-broke-the-b... Soros wasn’t alone, but the hedges funds certainly helped crush Thailand in 1997, triggering the Asian financial crisis. It’s not a stretch to suggest that his massive funding of political groups in countries in which he has bet against the currency is connected.
  - thisisit 8y ago
    Thanks for the reference. It was an interesting read: Yet Soros wasn't the biggest single speculator to hold a position against the currency. Julian Robertson's Tiger Fund had three times the exposure of Soros with almost $3 billion bet against the baht. If anything, Julian Robertson would have been more motivated to engineer Thailand's decline. It seems there were only rumors that Soros had anything to do with it, all the while someone else was more profitable than him. And given that he was already famous for the GBP trade why not blame him? What is interesting is that people don't seem to understand the consequences of pegs. It is much easier to paint a picture of greedy investor. But in most cases it has nothing to do with the investor and all up to the central banks. Something similar happened in the swiss franc and here's what happened to Soros: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-23/how-swiss-national-bank-almost-crushed-george-soros https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-23/how-swiss-national...
    - astronautjones 8y ago
      > It seems there were only rumors that Soros had anything to do with it, all the while someone else was more profitable than him. And given that he was already famous for the GBP trade why not blame him? because it's a conservative, anti-semitic trope. he is the ur-villian, the mega boss after people tire of you complaining about the clintons. it's been this way for twenty years
KKKKkkkk1 8y ago
Well, he is an investor who has a history of causing financial damage to whole countries by betting against their currencies. When the UK government made a commitment to prop up a fake GBP exchange rate and then failed, isn't it the UK government that caused the financial damage rather than George Soros?
- shrewduser 8y ago
  sounds similar to when the US was on the gold standard
  - stretchwithme 8y ago
    You mean when the US would give you a fixed amount of gold when you brought in US dollars, like it did for most of its history? Or when it abandoned that and the resulting inflation wrecked the 1970s?
duxup 8y ago
I can understand the curiosity. But let's say they look into it...are they likely to find his criticism to be reasonable and just walk away after that? I just wonder if you go as far as to investigate such things if you've got some motivation or inclination to find / feel their actions are biased or uncalled for and that might lead to what Facebook did... fire up their own disinformation...
panarky 8y ago
When the NYT first published "Delay, Deny and Deflect" [1], Sandberg pretended she didn't know anything about it and promised to investigate. Later, she claimed the investigation turned up emails about Facebook's deceptive practices that "crossed her desk" [2], but made it sound like her involvement was peripheral and incidental. Naturally, now we learn those were all lies, and she was personally involved the entire time actually leading the effort. Just more Delay, Deny and Deflect. Facebook cannot be trusted to fix Facebook. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/business/on-thanksgiving-eve-facebook-acknowledges-details-of-times-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/business/on-thanksgiving-...
- bob_bob_bob 8y ago
  I'm not sure what "this" you're referring to is, but assuming it's Definers: where did you learn she was involved the entire time? This article says: Ms. Sandberg [...] asked for the information in an email to a senior executive in January[...]. The email came within days of a blistering speech Mr. Soros delivered that month at the World Economic Forum, attacking Facebook and Google as a “menace” to society and calling for the companies to be regulated. This seems like a pretty reasonable reaction. As far as I understand this has nothing to do with Definers.
  - panarky 8y ago
    I'm referring to Facebook's efforts to discredit critics through the same sleazy disinformation campaign tactics that Facebook continues to amplify for other shadowy groups. You know, like targeting Facebook users who are racist and anti-Semitic with disinfo about George Soros, while simultaneously telling Jewish users that Facebook's critics are themselves anti-Semitic. FTFA, first paragraph: Sheryl Sandberg was directly involved in the social media company’s effort to conduct opposition research against billionaire philanthropist George Soros... ...reporting contradicts Sandberg’s previous portrayals of her involvement; she has said she was unaware of the campaign-style communications work done by Republican public relations firm Definers Public Affairs

docbrown 8y ago

This may be an unpopular opinion but here it is: Zuckerburg started this as a hobby with it being something he may never have thought of becoming full-scale. Fast forward to today and Zuckerburg is in over his head. He has control over this !massive! amount of data that companies are chomping at the bit for. He’s trying to make sure his company survives and his product does no harm. But, he’s losing control. They’re trying to wiggle out of these wormholes they’ve sunk in and all of their fabrications are coming to light.

askafriend 8y ago
Your comment is quite far off from reality. To address your first point: he started the company deliberately. He had sold a successful company before Facebook. He also turned down multi-billion dollar acquisition offers because he knew exactly what he was doing and what the opportunity was. Many of the funding rounds for FB were red hot and everyone was trying to get in. And to your second point: what he built is unprecedented. And because it is unprecedented, there are a lot of questions that we as a society need to answer collectively about the role a product like Facebook plays in our lives (kinda just like with every other new, transformational technology, including email). But to call his execution "In over his head" is laughable. I don't think other leaders would have fared any better and many could have fared much, much worse. Now, are there questions and valid criticisms about his execution today or his handling of the recent controversies? Of course! Does that mean he's a random guy with a side-project that accidentally blew up and suddenly he's in over his head? Absolutely not, your comment is more fantasy than reality.
- starik36 8y ago
  What business did he sell before Facebook?
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Probably referring to the Synapse Media Player, which had a million-dollar buyout offer from Microsoft while Zuckerburg was in high school. IIRC he didn't actually sell it though; it was still a going project under Zuckerburg's control when he created FB, and just kinda died out because FB held more potential.

swampthinker 8y ago

Facebook is turning an awful lot of Democrats into enemies. Very curious to see how Zuckerberg tries to maneuver Facebook through wartime. [1] [1] https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo-2/ https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceowartime-ceo-2/

vtesucks 8y ago
It's because the establishment segment (clinton) genuinely fear him throwing his hat in for 2020. Not that I like him but honestly, if he can sells fb stock and promises to genuinely treat Usa like his firm, I'd prefer him over a politician who says what pays (which is all politicians in all sides).
- jsonne 8y ago
  This was actually a major selling point for Trump during the election until it wasn't.
  - vtesucks 8y ago
    Trump's promises may not fit well with half the people but he has done all he promised. See list below. Lets see zuck try that - I think he will succeed too at least better than the "charming" presidents of the recent past on either side TPP cancelled Prison reform NAFTA renegotiated (this is something that is nit clear how well he did) China trade war (which by bloombergs account he has an upper hand in) North Korea peace
    - tasty_freeze 8y ago
      > he has done all he promised Yes, he closed all those tax loopholes that he is an expert at exploiting (his words, not mine). He implemented his plan to win the war in Afghanistan. The wall along the border of Mexico is 30 feet tall and beautiful and Mexico paid for it. The opioid problem has been solved. He has released his tax returns. He has put his assets in a blind trust. He has Made America Great Again.

vtesucks 8y ago

Mr soros is known to move markets to make money. I don't see why media can just label someone beyond reproach and malign anybody who tries to even dare to look them up

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dstroot 8y ago

She did what I would have done if someone was attacked my company for no obvious reason - I’d want to know if they stood to gain and how. Obviously when someone holds a short position and bashed a company it’s pretty transparent. That’s a big reason why Tesla was in the news so much the last 12 months. It’s when FB went on the offensive and started attacking Soros with “factually questionable” information that they crossed the line.

vtesucks 8y ago
Well balanced comment, thank you.
IBM 8y ago
Soros was long Facebook and Alphabet in the 13F filing before he gave his speech and was long Alphabet in the 13F filing that covered the period in which he gave his speech [1][2]. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036117042749/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036117... [2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036118008153/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1029160/000114036118...
jacquesm 8y ago
That's fine. But she lied about the whole thing which is not. It's a far cry from 'some emails crossed my desk' to 'I directed the research be done'.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

I would not be surprised if Mark Zuckerberg ends up becoming a Republican. He very obviously has political ambitions. A significant portion of the Left blames Facebook (at least in part) and by extension Zuckerberg for the election of Donald Trump. If he says the right things, I expect the Right to be more accepting than the Left which would still hold 2016 against him.

create_novelty 8y ago

I would assume that any important PR decision at Facebook would have to be green lit by Sheryl or Mark or both. Not surprised at this finding by NYT

elicash 8y ago
While it would be safe to assume that Facebook was being misleading from the start, it's important that news organizations do actual reporting to before coming to those types of conclusions.

writepub 8y ago

The article seems to imply Sandberg approved of anti semetic attacks against Soros, conveniently ignoring the fact that Sandberg (& Zuckerberg) is a Jew herself. I don't know what the editorial team at NYT thinks is happening, but I don't think Sandberg would condone anti semetic attacks against anyone, even rivals.

mc32 8y ago
The NYT takes sides. They will unfortunately omit things or insinuate things to support their opinion. NPR is much better, even though they lean left -but at least they try with exceptions.
- vtesucks 8y ago
  I don't mind leaning left or right. I mind lying left and right.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Right. But the NYT is not the old NYT. They are not NPR-quality any more.
    - stevenwoo 8y ago
      The NYT has been around a long time and at various times has written multiple glowing articles about Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler and other despots of all stripes which does not speak well of ye old NYT. It is difficult to find a disparaging word in any of their coverage of current day neo Nazis in the USA when they have done extensive interviews. One needs to judge each article on its own merits.
casefields 8y ago
That is such a weak defense. It didn't work for Edward Said and it won't work for them.
- 8y ago

40acres 8y ago

Not surprising but definitely adds to the icky feeling surrounding Sandberg and Zuckerberg. Interestingly enough I think Scott Galloway makes some great points, Sandberg is probably the most powerful woman in tech right now, it's probably a bad look for the board to let her go; and I doubt Zuck would force her out. I think she'll leave on her own terms.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

SirLJ 8y ago

But, but, but, she said she didn’t...

heifetz 8y ago

I think the reason why this is a story that is causing a lot of interest and outrage is that Soros was right! Sandberg, Zuck and co, instead of reflecting on what was actually happening, and investigating the issues that Facebook was causing, or was being used for, chose to try to play defense and attach the people and organizations that were criticizing them. If Facebook was serious about becoming a "good" platform, then it would have acted sooner. Instead, we can look back and say that they pretty much only care about growing revenue and did not care too much about these issues, until they because front and center after Trump was elected. There is probably some sexism towards the over criticism of Sandberg over Zuck. But at the same time, Zuck was more hands off while hosting facetime live from his backyard, and traveling around the US, and proclaiming how great Facebook was, while Sandberg is suppose to be the day to day operator. I think Zuck deserve a lot of the same blame for this, as the CEO and the founder.

rdlecler1 8y ago
That’s a lot of speculation from limited information. Best to default to outrage in this case...

chewz 8y ago

What? FB didn't have George Soros shadow profile at hand?

briandear 8y ago

We flag the story about Google employees discussing censoring conservative news sources but we push this story about Facebook to the front page? The intellectual dishonesty here is astounding.

dang 8y ago
Please stop posting these tedious off-topic complaints. I don't know what story you're talking about, but if you think flagging is being abused, let us know at hn@ycombinator.com so we can take a look at it.

richardknop 8y ago

I think given George Soros' history and the fact he is an investor known for making big bets, it is possible he would have a big short position open against Facebook and could gain lots of money if $FB stock keeps going down. It's not outside of realm of the possibilities the he would make a big bet like that so investigating what are his current positions in the stock market, how many puts is he holding etc might be a good idea.